GiveMemes @ GiveMemes @jlai.lu

Posts

1

Comments

787

Joined

2 yr. ago

Some do. Some, like Shaq or Ryan Reynolds (or Kanye) use their money to invest in other companies. Ryan Reynolds coming out and saying Nazi shit would probably be bad for Mint, just like Ye's controversy was bad for Yeezy, just like Elon's controversy is bad for Tesla.

Just realized clean drinking water, electricity, transport infrastructure, etc. isn't important. The things you think are important to the world are only important because most people in first world countries have never had to face true hardship in their lives as a result of technological advancement.

I'm not talking about string theory. Scientists disagree about things at a high level all the time. It's how the fields move forward. They don't disagree on the fundamentals though, which social sciences have a tendency to.

I'm not here to say the social sciences are useless. In fact I've stated several times that I think people need to be able to understand them and use them. I'm arguing something different entirely and I don't know why you keep strawmanning me. It's not about some ideological purity but a basic difference in the ability to learn things because of our inability to control the relevant variables.

I think you just don't understand what I'm saying. All that may be true but then you would need to control for ALL those variables for good science which you just cannot do in the social sciences.

They're important, just not really good science. They're useful, but not in the way physics is. There aren't competing theories of the most basic levels of understanding in the hard sciences. There are throughout the entirety of the fields of the social sciences.

I don't think she does cracks technically, right? They're repacks I thought

There's a reason we have realism in political science though. Theory isnt the truth of how things play out in real life, especially when it comes to the social sciences. We need descriptions just as much, if not moreso, than prescriptions.

I agree that theory is important tho, so I'll do my part by linking a free resource: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5GYwuvmAD_VyV6w5aFnnUw

Lots of words to say I have no proof and provide only conjecture.

Cause the middle school one is the quadratic formula. You use it to factor 2nd degree polynomials. You don't solve for a, b, and c, you just plug them in.

Seems more like religion and blind belief to me. I agree that you can't define consciousness in terms of particles... yet. But to say it's impossible is a huge leap. High level biology is basically all physics and chem for this reason; it's emergent from the 2 together. That doesn't mean that you can't define biological processes in terms of their chemical and physical activities though. It's kind of like free will: we think we have it because we make 'choices' but at the end of the day our brain is just a series of particles, so where does the free will come from? Are we just deluding ourselves?

Can you provide an academic paper? I think I understand the concept, but I fail to see it being meaningful with relation to the examples I posed of why the social sciences aren't scientific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlK51P0vuc4

That literally has nothing to do with what Im talking about, which you should really know given your username. I'm done here.

I do read theory. I just know theory isnt the be all end all of understanding the world. If it was, that would be great, but you just happen to agree with this guys philosophical musings. Besides that, you call me a liberal when I'm literally not but whatever.

You're arguing with an imaginary friend and a beautiful strawman opinion you made for him to hold.

I never said anything about Haiti, but comparing anybody living in a first world country (the vast majority of this site's users and where such a revolution is more likely to take place) to a slave is disingenuous at absolute best.

I also don't think that Dessalines needed to massacre the remaining french people on the island. I'm willing to bet I have a better und3rstanding of the haitian revolution than you. You know they reinstated slavery within a couple of years, right? Read some Trouillot.

🤡

Wdym

Ah, yes, all societies and situations are homogeneous I forgot.

Besides that, people deserve to die for playing by the rules of the system in which we live? Why not change the rules to prevent abuse?

Clown

dehumanization of the other

Whooooah there buddy.

This just in: theoretical physicists are not scientists.

The issue with considering these to be anything like the 'hard sciences' is that it is impossible to even try to control for all variables. Plus, whenever sociologists, for example, make a bad prediction, they just write it off as differences in personality or some other similar thing.

God forbid they actually just falsified their hypothesis. It's important that people understand how to think about the social sciences, don't get me wrong, but they're pretty overwhelmingly ineffective for creating a proper framework for understanding the world around you.

Theories in social science and theories in hard science are totally different.

Theories in science have a shit ton of evidence behind them and haven't been falsified.

Theories in social science, on the other hand, are all in competition with each other because they all have their positive and negative aspects that make them better for application in some situations than others.

And yes I know that we still use a newtonian idea of gravity in many cases, but that's completely different as it just tends to make the math easier in practice. It's not that we actually still believe in newtonian ideas.

The issue with considering these to be anything like the 'hard sciences' is that it is impossible to even try to control for all variables. Plus, whenever sociologists, for example, make a bad prediction, they just write it off as differences in personality or some other similar thing.

God forbid they actually just falsified their hypothesis. It's important that people understand how to think about the social sciences, don't get me wrong, but they're pretty overwhelmingly ineffective for creating a proper framework for understanding the world around you.

Theories in social science and theories in hard science are totally different.

Theories in science have a shit ton of evidence behind them and haven't been falsified.

Theories in social science, on the other hand, are all in competition with each other because they all have their positive and negative aspects that make them better for application in some situations than others.

And yes I know that we still use a newtonian idea of gravity in many cases, but that's completely different as it just tends to make the math easier in practice. It's not that we actually still believe in newtonian ideas.

So then gun owners can't drink coffee?

Its a part of first episode of black mirror s1